Radiation Oncology Residency Training Program Integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Program Director Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate United States (US) radiation oncology (RO) program directors' (PDs) attitudes and practices regarding racial/ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to better understand potential effects on underrepresented in medicine (UIM) residents in RO. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 28-item survey was developed using the validated Ethnic Harassment Experiences Scale and the Daily Life Experiences subscale, as well as input from DEI leaders in RO. The survey was institutional review board-approved and administered to RO PDs. PDs were provided with the American Association of Medical Colleges definition of UIM, that is, "Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population." Descriptive statistics were used in analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (64/90). Institutional Culture and Beliefs: 42% responded that they had a department DEI director. A minority (17%, n = 11) agreed "I believe that people from UIM backgrounds have equal access to quality tertiary education in the US." The majority (97%, n = 62) agreed "My program values residents from UIM backgrounds." Support and Resources: The majority (78%, n = 50) agreed "My program has resources in place to assist/provide support for resident physicians from UIM backgrounds." Interview and Recruitment: Most PDs (53%) had not taken part in activities aimed at recruiting UIM residents and 17% had interviewed no UIM applicants in the past 5 years for residency. Resident Experiences of Racism: 17% (n = 11) agreed "UIM residents in my program have reported incidents of racism to me," and 28% (n = 18) agreed "I believe that UIM residents in my program have been treated differently because of their race/ethnicity by faculty, staff, coresidents or patients." CONCLUSIONS: Most PDs reported that they did not believe that UIM residents were treated differently in their department because of their race/ethnicity, and only a minority had received reports of racial discrimination experienced by residents. These data contrast resident experiences and suggest a disconnect between DEI perceptions and resident experiences among US RO PDs that should be addressed through increased programmatic action and evaluation.

Inequalities in Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Among Incarcerated Individuals Undergoing Radiation Therapy at a Large Safety-Net Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: There is a dearth of data on cancer care in the incarcerated population, despite being the leading cause of illness-related death in United states' prisons. We retrospectively reviewed the demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of incarcerated individuals who received radiation therapy at a large safety-net hospital. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we identified 80 incarcerated patients who presented for radiation therapy between January 2003 and May 2019. Descriptive statistics on the patients, tumor types and stage, treatment factors, and follow-up rates were analyzed. RESULTS: 80 individuals with 82 cancer diagnoses presented for radiation oncology consultation over the study period. The median age was 54 years (range, 46-64). Patients of White, Black, and "other" races comprised 61.3% (n=49), 28.8% (n=23), and 10% (n=8), respectively. Most patients were male (n=75, 93.8%) and English speakers (n=76, 95%). Moreover, 50% (n=40) had a substance use disorder history and 75% (n=60) had a smoking history. The three most common cancer types were prostate (n=12, 14.6%), gastrointestinal (n=14, 17.1%), thoracic (n=17, 20.7%), and head and neck (n=21, 25.6%). The distribution of tumor stage (AJCC) was I (n=12, 14.6%), II (n=12, 14.6%), III (n=14, 17.1%), IV (n=38, 46.3%), and unknown/unavailable (n=6, 7.3%). Of the cohort, 65 patients with 66 cancers (80.5%) received radiation. Among them, the 6-month, 1-year, and 5-year follow-up rates were 41.5%, 27.7%, and 3.1%, respectively. Subset analysis limited to stage I-III patients (n=30) revealed 6-month, 1-year and 5-year follow-up rates of 41.9%, 22.6%, and 3.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights inequalities in cancer stage at diagnosis among a vulnerable patient population that is largely excluded from clinical research. Majority of the incarcerated patients presented with stage III & IV cancers and have poor follow up rates even among those with early-stage disease. Efforts to understand and mitigate persistent health inequalities among incarcerated patients are warranted.

Radiation Oncology Resident Perspectives on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Resident Survey.

PURPOSE: In this study, radiation oncology residents were surveyed on perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in their residency training programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 23-item survey was developed by the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee resident members and faculty advisors. The survey was divided into 4 sections: institutional culture, support and resources, interview and recruitment, and experiences of bias. The survey was sent individually to residents from all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology programs. RESULTS: The survey was issued to 757 residents. A total of 319 residents completed the survey, for a response rate of 42%. All postgraduate years and geographic regions were represented. Significant racial, ethnic, and gender differences were present in survey response patterns. White residents (94%, 164 of 174) and male residents (96%, 186 of 194) were more likely to strongly agree/agree that they were treated with respect by their colleagues and their coworkers than other racial groups (P < .005) or gender groups (P < .008). Only 3% (5 of 174) of White residents strongly agreed/agreed that they were treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity, while 31% (5 of 16) of Black residents and 10% (9 of 94) of Asian residents strongly agreed/agreed (P < .0001). Similarly, Hispanic residents were more likely to strongly agree/agree (24%, 5 of 21) than non-Hispanic residents (7%, 20 of 298) (P = .003). Regarding mentorship, there were no differences by gender or ethnicity. There were differences by race in residents reporting that they had a supportive mentor (P = .022), with 89% (154 of 174) of White residents who strongly agreed/agreed, 88% (14 of 16) of Black residents, and 91% of Asian residents (86 of 94). CONCLUSIONS: This survey reveals that experiences of support, mentorship, inclusion, and bias vary significantly among radiation oncology residents based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Radiation oncology has opportunity for growth to ensure an equitable experience for all residents.

A Paradigm Shift in Radiation Oncology Training.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has been intertwined with the movement for racial justice in the United States and has highlighted and risks aggravating educational and workforce disparities within radiation oncology. We discuss wide-ranging changes within radiation oncology training that are essential to developing and maintaining diversity, including utilization of competency-based educational models that allow for streamlining of training and examinations; responsiveness to the needs of residents and medical students of different gender, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic groups; and technological integration to increase educational efficiency and decrease barriers.

Leveraging Telehealth and Medical Student Volunteers to Bridge Gaps in Education Access for Providers in Limited-Resource Settings.

PROBLEM: High-quality training opportunities for providers in limited-resource settings are often scarce or nonexistent. This can lead to a dearth of boots-on-the-ground workers capable of translating knowledge into effective action. The tested telehealth education model of Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) can help address this disparity. However, the planning and logistical coordination required can be limiting. APPROACH: Medical student volunteers interested in health disparities and global health can be leveraged to reduce the costs of administration for Project ECHO programs. From mid-2018 to present (2020), student organizations have been formed at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. These organizations have recruited and trained volunteers, who play an active role in assessing the needs of local clinics and providers, developing curricula, and coordinating the logistical aspects of programs. OUTCOMES: In the first 4 student-coordinated Project ECHO cohorts (2019-2020), 25 clinics in 14 countries participated, with a potential impact on over 20,000 cancer patients annually. Satisfaction with the telehealth education programs was high among local clinicians and expert educators. Students' perceived ability to conduct activities important to successfully orchestrating a telehealth education program was significantly greater among students who had coordinated one or more Project ECHO programs than among students who had yet to participate for 7 of 9 competencies. There also appears to be an additive effect of participating in additional Project ECHO programs on perceived confidence and career path intentions. NEXT STEPS: The student-led model of coordinating telehealth education programs described here can be readily expanded to medical schools across the nation and beyond. With continued expansion, efforts are needed to develop assessments that provide insights into participants' learning, track changes in patient outcomes, and provide continuing medical education credits to local clinicians.